"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
The full gamut of available choices is not open borders or a continuation of Trump policy. This is explicitly a Republican argument you're making.
But you seem to be criticizing Biden for not doing the former. What is it exactly you want him to do?
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
Do you feel that Team Biden told anyone at all to go forth and be cruel to scare people away? Because Trump did.
Again, our immigrant detention system is explicitly carceral in nature, and American Carceral systems have deterrence (in this case, to deter immigrants from coming over without submitting to a years, if not decade plus, long process that has no guarantee they will be able to move here and become citizens) as a very specific feature. You cannot separate the two.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
Do you feel that Team Biden told anyone at all to go forth and be cruel to scare people away? Because Trump did.
I don't care? They know what the system they're choosing to subject these people to operates like and is capable of. They've chosen to do so anyway.
Okay.
This argument that you're making that they're not trying to be cruel, if even taken at face value, amounts to little more than "continuing the same policies that Trump had is ok because we're good people"
I am literally not making an argument and it is really weird that you think it's an argument.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
They are trying their best with what resources they have to get everyone they have in the system processed. They don't have the facilities or manpower to do that to the degree anyone, including people in this thread or in the White House from anything they've said, want. Though the Biden admin is currently trying to expand that logistical capacity.
This is, again, very obviously different from a process of deliberately inflicting cruel and inhumane treatment on people to convince others that they should not come.
"Trying their best" is very much not a claim in evidence.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
The full gamut of available choices is not open borders or a continuation of Trump policy. This is explicitly a Republican argument you're making.
But you seem to be criticizing Biden for not doing the former. What is it exactly you want him to do?
Like I've said on multiple occasions. Take information on people detained, give them court dates, and let them go. This is turning into the same shit we see in the Foreign Policy thread where anything other than bipartisan empire has to be isolationism.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
Do you feel that Team Biden told anyone at all to go forth and be cruel to scare people away? Because Trump did.
Again, our immigrant detention system is explicitly carceral in nature, and American Carceral systems have deterrence (in this case, to deter immigrants from coming over without submitting to a years, if not decade plus, long process that has no guarantee they will be able to move here and become citizens) as a very specific feature. You cannot separate the two.
Yes. The goal of the current policy is to stop people from entering the country. Giving them a reason to not attempt to do so is part of that. There are better ways and worse ways to do this. Going full Dracula would be pretty bad. Splitting up families is pretty fucking bad.
You can disagree with the goal, and I wouldn't even entirely disagree.
You can also disagree with the methods to meet that goal, but then I wonder what your alternative methods to meeting that goal would be.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
They are trying their best with what resources they have to get everyone they have in the system processed. They don't have the facilities or manpower to do that to the degree anyone, including people in this thread or in the White House from anything they've said, want. Though the Biden admin is currently trying to expand that logistical capacity.
This is, again, very obviously different from a process of deliberately inflicting cruel and inhumane treatment on people to convince others that they should not come.
"Trying their best" is very much not a claim in evidence.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
The full gamut of available choices is not open borders or a continuation of Trump policy. This is explicitly a Republican argument you're making.
But you seem to be criticizing Biden for not doing the former. What is it exactly you want him to do?
Like I've said on multiple occasions. Take information on people detained, give them court dates, and let them go. This is turning into the same shit we see in the Foreign Policy thread where anything other than bipartisan empire has to be isolationism.
But not everyone is going to be cleared by those courts to stay (in fact, most would not). So there will still be deportations, just at a later date. Would you be OK with that?
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
They are trying their best with what resources they have to get everyone they have in the system processed. They don't have the facilities or manpower to do that to the degree anyone, including people in this thread or in the White House from anything they've said, want. Though the Biden admin is currently trying to expand that logistical capacity.
This is, again, very obviously different from a process of deliberately inflicting cruel and inhumane treatment on people to convince others that they should not come.
"Trying their best" is very much not a claim in evidence.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
The full gamut of available choices is not open borders or a continuation of Trump policy. This is explicitly a Republican argument you're making.
But you seem to be criticizing Biden for not doing the former. What is it exactly you want him to do?
Like I've said on multiple occasions. Take information on people detained, give them court dates, and let them go. This is turning into the same shit we see in the Foreign Policy thread where anything other than bipartisan empire has to be isolationism.
But not everyone is going to be cleared by those courts to stay (in fact, most would not). So there will still be deportations, just at a later date. Would you be OK with that?
Yes. More or less. I don't believe in borders but a system in which immigrants are left to their own will and a court sorts out their right to stay in due course is wildly more humane than what Biden has chosen to do.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
They are trying their best with what resources they have to get everyone they have in the system processed. They don't have the facilities or manpower to do that to the degree anyone, including people in this thread or in the White House from anything they've said, want. Though the Biden admin is currently trying to expand that logistical capacity.
This is, again, very obviously different from a process of deliberately inflicting cruel and inhumane treatment on people to convince others that they should not come.
"Trying their best" is very much not a claim in evidence.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
The full gamut of available choices is not open borders or a continuation of Trump policy. This is explicitly a Republican argument you're making.
But you seem to be criticizing Biden for not doing the former. What is it exactly you want him to do?
Like I've said on multiple occasions. Take information on people detained, give them court dates, and let them go. This is turning into the same shit we see in the Foreign Policy thread where anything other than bipartisan empire has to be isolationism.
But not everyone is going to be cleared by those courts to stay (in fact, most would not). So there will still be deportations, just at a later date. Would you be OK with that?
Yes. More or less. I don't believe in borders but a system in which immigrants are left to their own will and a court sorts out their right to stay in due course is wildly more humane than what Biden has chosen to do.
Do you feel this would deter attempts to enter the country?
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
They are trying their best with what resources they have to get everyone they have in the system processed. They don't have the facilities or manpower to do that to the degree anyone, including people in this thread or in the White House from anything they've said, want. Though the Biden admin is currently trying to expand that logistical capacity.
This is, again, very obviously different from a process of deliberately inflicting cruel and inhumane treatment on people to convince others that they should not come.
"Trying their best" is very much not a claim in evidence.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
The full gamut of available choices is not open borders or a continuation of Trump policy. This is explicitly a Republican argument you're making.
But you seem to be criticizing Biden for not doing the former. What is it exactly you want him to do?
Like I've said on multiple occasions. Take information on people detained, give them court dates, and let them go. This is turning into the same shit we see in the Foreign Policy thread where anything other than bipartisan empire has to be isolationism.
But not everyone is going to be cleared by those courts to stay (in fact, most would not). So there will still be deportations, just at a later date. Would you be OK with that?
Yes. More or less. I don't believe in borders but a system in which immigrants are left to their own will and a court sorts out their right to stay in due course is wildly more humane than what Biden has chosen to do.
Do you feel this would deter attempts to enter the country?
I'm not a Republican. I don't care about attempting to deter people from entering the country.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
That's a bizarre thing to say. What I'm talking about is denying asylum seekers the right to make their petition at a border crossing, and allowing ICE/BP to detain and send back anyone without ever being allowed a lawyer. I'm not opposed to open borders, but that's an extremely right wing definition of open borders.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
They are trying their best with what resources they have to get everyone they have in the system processed. They don't have the facilities or manpower to do that to the degree anyone, including people in this thread or in the White House from anything they've said, want. Though the Biden admin is currently trying to expand that logistical capacity.
This is, again, very obviously different from a process of deliberately inflicting cruel and inhumane treatment on people to convince others that they should not come.
"Trying their best" is very much not a claim in evidence.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
The full gamut of available choices is not open borders or a continuation of Trump policy. This is explicitly a Republican argument you're making.
But you seem to be criticizing Biden for not doing the former. What is it exactly you want him to do?
Like I've said on multiple occasions. Take information on people detained, give them court dates, and let them go. This is turning into the same shit we see in the Foreign Policy thread where anything other than bipartisan empire has to be isolationism.
But not everyone is going to be cleared by those courts to stay (in fact, most would not). So there will still be deportations, just at a later date. Would you be OK with that?
Yes. More or less. I don't believe in borders but a system in which immigrants are left to their own will and a court sorts out their right to stay in due course is wildly more humane than what Biden has chosen to do.
It still wouldn't look pretty. It'd be ICE bundling people into vans after the judge dismissed their case, and taking them to border camps to be deported. Even worse, in the 2 years it takes to process their case, they've probably built a life in the USA. Got a job. Got married. Had a kid. And then suddenly... thrown back to the bad situation they came from.
There's no way to do this nicely.
And also... you want open borders but consider "open borders" a Republican caricature of the situation? Confusing....
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
They are trying their best with what resources they have to get everyone they have in the system processed. They don't have the facilities or manpower to do that to the degree anyone, including people in this thread or in the White House from anything they've said, want. Though the Biden admin is currently trying to expand that logistical capacity.
This is, again, very obviously different from a process of deliberately inflicting cruel and inhumane treatment on people to convince others that they should not come.
"Trying their best" is very much not a claim in evidence.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
The full gamut of available choices is not open borders or a continuation of Trump policy. This is explicitly a Republican argument you're making.
But you seem to be criticizing Biden for not doing the former. What is it exactly you want him to do?
Like I've said on multiple occasions. Take information on people detained, give them court dates, and let them go. This is turning into the same shit we see in the Foreign Policy thread where anything other than bipartisan empire has to be isolationism.
But not everyone is going to be cleared by those courts to stay (in fact, most would not). So there will still be deportations, just at a later date. Would you be OK with that?
Yes. More or less. I don't believe in borders but a system in which immigrants are left to their own will and a court sorts out their right to stay in due course is wildly more humane than what Biden has chosen to do.
It still wouldn't look pretty. It'd be ICE bundling people into vans after the judge dismissed their case, and taking them to border camps to be deported. Even worse, in the 2 years it takes to process their case, they've probably built a life in the USA. Got a job. Got married. Had a kid. And then suddenly... thrown back to the bad situation they came from.
There's no way to do this nicely.
And also... you want open borders but consider "open borders" a Republican caricature of the situation? Confusing....
It wouldn't be cages running at 1700% capacity breeding plague and sex crimes. Jesus. Going to tell a BLM activist that sometimes people will still need to get arrested next?
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
That's a bizarre thing to say. What I'm talking about is denying asylum seekers the right to make their petition at a border crossing, and allowing ICE/BP to detain and send back anyone without ever being allowed a lawyer. I'm not opposed to open borders, but that's an extremely right wing definition of open borders.
I'm not trying to imply anything I'm not saying explicitly. My understanding is that the administration is currently trying to increase legal access, but that there are resource issues in doing so due to the sheer volume of it. I personally am rather upset that access to legal resources seems to be especially low, and I personally don't understand why that access isn't being expanded nor do I understand what possible resource constraints would apply to it. Biden is actively discouraging immigrants of all sorts, specifically including refugees, at least partly because the system cannot take it, and most assuredly also for political reasons.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
That's a bizarre thing to say. What I'm talking about is denying asylum seekers the right to make their petition at a border crossing, and allowing ICE/BP to detain and send back anyone without ever being allowed a lawyer. I'm not opposed to open borders, but that's an extremely right wing definition of open borders.
I'm not trying to imply anything I'm not saying explicitly. My understanding is that the administration is currently trying to increase legal access, but that there are resource issues in doing so due to the sheer volume of it. I personally am rather upset that access to legal resources seems to be especially low, and I personally don't understand why that access isn't being expanded nor do I understand what possible resource constraints would apply to it. Biden is actively discouraging immigrants of all sorts, specifically including refugees, at least partly because the system cannot take it, and most assuredly also for political reasons.
Open border scaremongering when they haven't been mentioned is a pretty standard feature of right wing discourse, much of vile. Unless the person you're talking is about it specifically, invoking open borders out of nowhere is just not something I'm down with. If I don't mention open borders, I don't really appreciate someone dropping their open borders quotes on me.
+7
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I'll advocate for open borders. Borders are dumb and arbitrary.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
They are trying their best with what resources they have to get everyone they have in the system processed. They don't have the facilities or manpower to do that to the degree anyone, including people in this thread or in the White House from anything they've said, want. Though the Biden admin is currently trying to expand that logistical capacity.
This is, again, very obviously different from a process of deliberately inflicting cruel and inhumane treatment on people to convince others that they should not come.
"Trying their best" is very much not a claim in evidence.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
The full gamut of available choices is not open borders or a continuation of Trump policy. This is explicitly a Republican argument you're making.
But you seem to be criticizing Biden for not doing the former. What is it exactly you want him to do?
Like I've said on multiple occasions. Take information on people detained, give them court dates, and let them go. This is turning into the same shit we see in the Foreign Policy thread where anything other than bipartisan empire has to be isolationism.
But not everyone is going to be cleared by those courts to stay (in fact, most would not). So there will still be deportations, just at a later date. Would you be OK with that?
Yes. More or less. I don't believe in borders but a system in which immigrants are left to their own will and a court sorts out their right to stay in due course is wildly more humane than what Biden has chosen to do.
It still wouldn't look pretty. It'd be ICE bundling people into vans after the judge dismissed their case, and taking them to border camps to be deported. Even worse, in the 2 years it takes to process their case, they've probably built a life in the USA. Got a job. Got married. Had a kid. And then suddenly... thrown back to the bad situation they came from.
There's no way to do this nicely.
And also... you want open borders but consider "open borders" a Republican caricature of the situation? Confusing....
It wouldn't be cages running at 1700% capacity breeding plague and sex crimes.
I don't think they should do that either. They didn't used to. They just made people wait for court dates, like you say. But I'm pretty sure you didn't like that system either, because I remember you criticising this system under Obama.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
Biden's strategy is using Title 42 to turn basically everyone who isn't an unaccompanied minor around and send them back. This is very similar to what Trump was doing after he invoked Title 42. I'm only unsure if Trump was still letting the unaccompanied minors in. He's also ended the Remain in Mexico policy.
But the contention though was that he was using deliberately cruel treatment to convince people not to come. This was a Trump strategy before the pandemic and was the core of their child separation policy. This is something the Biden admin is not trying to do from anything I've seen.
They're just being accidently cruel to immigrants instead I guess?
They are trying their best with what resources they have to get everyone they have in the system processed. They don't have the facilities or manpower to do that to the degree anyone, including people in this thread or in the White House from anything they've said, want. Though the Biden admin is currently trying to expand that logistical capacity.
This is, again, very obviously different from a process of deliberately inflicting cruel and inhumane treatment on people to convince others that they should not come.
"Trying their best" is very much not a claim in evidence.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
The full gamut of available choices is not open borders or a continuation of Trump policy. This is explicitly a Republican argument you're making.
But you seem to be criticizing Biden for not doing the former. What is it exactly you want him to do?
Like I've said on multiple occasions. Take information on people detained, give them court dates, and let them go. This is turning into the same shit we see in the Foreign Policy thread where anything other than bipartisan empire has to be isolationism.
But not everyone is going to be cleared by those courts to stay (in fact, most would not). So there will still be deportations, just at a later date. Would you be OK with that?
Yes. More or less. I don't believe in borders but a system in which immigrants are left to their own will and a court sorts out their right to stay in due course is wildly more humane than what Biden has chosen to do.
It still wouldn't look pretty. It'd be ICE bundling people into vans after the judge dismissed their case, and taking them to border camps to be deported. Even worse, in the 2 years it takes to process their case, they've probably built a life in the USA. Got a job. Got married. Had a kid. And then suddenly... thrown back to the bad situation they came from.
There's no way to do this nicely.
And also... you want open borders but consider "open borders" a Republican caricature of the situation? Confusing....
It wouldn't be cages running at 1700% capacity breeding plague and sex crimes.
I don't think they should do that either. They didn't used to. They just made people wait for court dates, like you say. But I'm pretty sure you didn't like that system either, because I remember you criticising this system under Obama.
I feel like you're not really following the argument here.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
That's a bizarre thing to say. What I'm talking about is denying asylum seekers the right to make their petition at a border crossing, and allowing ICE/BP to detain and send back anyone without ever being allowed a lawyer. I'm not opposed to open borders, but that's an extremely right wing definition of open borders.
I'm not trying to imply anything I'm not saying explicitly. My understanding is that the administration is currently trying to increase legal access, but that there are resource issues in doing so due to the sheer volume of it. I personally am rather upset that access to legal resources seems to be especially low, and I personally don't understand why that access isn't being expanded nor do I understand what possible resource constraints would apply to it. Biden is actively discouraging immigrants of all sorts, specifically including refugees, at least partly because the system cannot take it, and most assuredly also for political reasons.
Open border scaremongering when they haven't been mentioned is a pretty standard feature of right wing discourse, much of vile. Unless the person you're talking is about it specifically, invoking open borders out of nowhere is just not something I'm down with. If I don't mention open borders, I don't really appreciate someone dropping their open borders quotes on me.
The problem is what you call open borders scaremongering is effective.
The most right wing / hawkish / whatever poster in this thread is still probably in the leftmost 25% of the Democratic Party voters when it comes to immigration, ICE reform or abolishment, etc.
And a lot of the suggestions (turn loose for x years in pandemic until trial / deportation) are absolutely going to be presented as 'open borders' by the media and seen as such by a lot of the population in a way that will make actual reform harder.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
That's a bizarre thing to say. What I'm talking about is denying asylum seekers the right to make their petition at a border crossing, and allowing ICE/BP to detain and send back anyone without ever being allowed a lawyer. I'm not opposed to open borders, but that's an extremely right wing definition of open borders.
I'm not trying to imply anything I'm not saying explicitly. My understanding is that the administration is currently trying to increase legal access, but that there are resource issues in doing so due to the sheer volume of it. I personally am rather upset that access to legal resources seems to be especially low, and I personally don't understand why that access isn't being expanded nor do I understand what possible resource constraints would apply to it. Biden is actively discouraging immigrants of all sorts, specifically including refugees, at least partly because the system cannot take it, and most assuredly also for political reasons.
Open border scaremongering when they haven't been mentioned is a pretty standard feature of right wing discourse, much of vile. Unless the person you're talking is about it specifically, invoking open borders out of nowhere is just not something I'm down with. If I don't mention open borders, I don't really appreciate someone dropping their open borders quotes on me.
The problem is what you call open borders scaremongering is effective.
The most right wing / hawkish / whatever poster in this thread is still probably in the leftmost 25% of the Democratic Party voters when it comes to immigration, ICE reform or abolishment, etc.
And a lot of the suggestions (turn loose for x years in pandemic until trial / deportation) are absolutely going to be presented as 'open borders' by the media and seen as such by a lot of the population in a way that will make actual reform harder.
How does this is any way excuse people here doing it?
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
That's a bizarre thing to say. What I'm talking about is denying asylum seekers the right to make their petition at a border crossing, and allowing ICE/BP to detain and send back anyone without ever being allowed a lawyer. I'm not opposed to open borders, but that's an extremely right wing definition of open borders.
I'm not trying to imply anything I'm not saying explicitly. My understanding is that the administration is currently trying to increase legal access, but that there are resource issues in doing so due to the sheer volume of it. I personally am rather upset that access to legal resources seems to be especially low, and I personally don't understand why that access isn't being expanded nor do I understand what possible resource constraints would apply to it. Biden is actively discouraging immigrants of all sorts, specifically including refugees, at least partly because the system cannot take it, and most assuredly also for political reasons.
Open border scaremongering when they haven't been mentioned is a pretty standard feature of right wing discourse, much of vile. Unless the person you're talking is about it specifically, invoking open borders out of nowhere is just not something I'm down with. If I don't mention open borders, I don't really appreciate someone dropping their open borders quotes on me.
Open borders don't really have an automatic stigma in this discussion, but I will try to keep in mind that you are uncomfortable with the concept going forward.
My overall point is that Biden's current goal is to reduce the number of people attempting to enter the country, yes, and I am not denying that it resembles the previous administration. I disagree that the situation is "virtually identical" because the methodology is different, and the long-term goals are at least partly different.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
The methodology is different on one major point and that wasn't even a policy that continued through Trump's entire time in office.
What we're seeing right now is what a bipartisan agreement looks like. Both parties are pursuing the same world view while one side revels in it and the other acts like its such a shame they have to do it.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
The methodology is different on one major point and that wasn't even a policy that continued through Trump's entire time in office.
What we're seeing right now is what a bipartisan agreement looks like. Both parties are pursuing the same world view while one side revels in it and the other acts like its such a shame they have to do it.
Do you feel that all of Biden's in-progress reforms would also be happening regardless of the current administration?
The methodology is different on one major point and that wasn't even a policy that continued through Trump's entire time in office.
What we're seeing right now is what a bipartisan agreement looks like. Both parties are pursuing the same world view while one side revels in it and the other acts like its such a shame they have to do it.
Do you feel that all of Biden's in-progress reforms would also be happening regardless of the current administration?
I think we would vacillate back and forth between a joyously cruel policy or a cruel policy run by people who pretend they have no choice. I'm not going to confuse marginally less terrible for an actual shift in world view.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
I'm not sure that the US qualifies as one of the most welcoming. The degree to which we're welcoming tends to depend on our labor needs more than anything else.
The methodology is different on one major point and that wasn't even a policy that continued through Trump's entire time in office.
What we're seeing right now is what a bipartisan agreement looks like. Both parties are pursuing the same world view while one side revels in it and the other acts like its such a shame they have to do it.
Do you feel that all of Biden's in-progress reforms would also be happening regardless of the current administration?
I think we would vacillate back and forth between a joyously cruel policy or a cruel policy run by people who pretend they have no choice. I'm not going to confuse marginally less terrible for an actual shift in world view.
Fair enough. I agree that, with American culture as it is, that's a very likely outcome.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
There are a huge number of policies that would be an absolute boon, but even attempting to enact them, even if possible, would almost certainly result in a far worse and more harmful backlash.
Accepting Syrian refugees has been used throughout Europe a single issue that has gotten several far-right / facist governments elected. Also here in the US with Trump and immigration.
So if the good humane and even beneficial policy would almost result in a greater amount of bad inhumane and harmful policy in 2-4 years, when a less than ideal but pragmatic and humane as feasible policy doesn't, you risk making perfect the enemy of the good and causing more pain and harm instead of trying to improve what you reasonably can
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
I'm not sure that the US qualifies as one of the most welcoming. The degree to which we're welcoming tends to depend on our labor needs more than anything else.
Sure it does. Just look at the others! Most countries out there are wildly xenophobic.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
There are a huge number of policies that would be an absolute boon, but even attempting to enact them, even if possible, would almost certainly result in a far worse and more harmful backlash.
Accepting Syrian refugees has been used throughout Europe a single issue that has gotten several far-right / facist governments elected. Also here in the US with Trump and immigration.
So if the good humane and even beneficial policy would almost result in a greater amount of bad inhumane and harmful policy in 2-4 years, when a less than ideal but pragmatic and humane as feasible policy doesn't, you risk making perfect the enemy of the good and causing more pain and harm instead of trying to improve what you reasonably can
Are you arguing that accepting Syrian refugees in Europe was a net negative?
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
I'm not sure that the US qualifies as one of the most welcoming. The degree to which we're welcoming tends to depend on our labor needs more than anything else.
Sure it does. Just look at the others! Most countries out there are wildly xenophobic.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
I'm not sure that the US qualifies as one of the most welcoming. The degree to which we're welcoming tends to depend on our labor needs more than anything else.
Sure it does. Just look at the others! Most countries out there are wildly xenophobic.
I'm not sure an opinion poll like that is actually a good way to measure this. American respondent rates are almost certainly inflated by a national narrative that is not reflect in programs and behaviors.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
There are a huge number of policies that would be an absolute boon, but even attempting to enact them, even if possible, would almost certainly result in a far worse and more harmful backlash.
Accepting Syrian refugees has been used throughout Europe a single issue that has gotten several far-right / facist governments elected. Also here in the US with Trump and immigration.
So if the good humane and even beneficial policy would almost result in a greater amount of bad inhumane and harmful policy in 2-4 years, when a less than ideal but pragmatic and humane as feasible policy doesn't, you risk making perfect the enemy of the good and causing more pain and harm instead of trying to improve what you reasonably can
Are you arguing that accepting Syrian refugees in Europe was a net negative?
Good for the world and humanity, bad for the popularity of politicians who permitted it.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
I'm not sure that the US qualifies as one of the most welcoming. The degree to which we're welcoming tends to depend on our labor needs more than anything else.
Sure it does. Just look at the others! Most countries out there are wildly xenophobic.
I'm not sure an opinion poll like that is actually a good way to measure this. American respondent rates are almost certainly inflated by a national narrative that is not reflect in programs and behaviors.
If you've got a better study I'd love to get closer to correct. I'm not sure what organization qualifies as a low-bias expert on the topic.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
There are a huge number of policies that would be an absolute boon, but even attempting to enact them, even if possible, would almost certainly result in a far worse and more harmful backlash.
Accepting Syrian refugees has been used throughout Europe a single issue that has gotten several far-right / facist governments elected. Also here in the US with Trump and immigration.
So if the good humane and even beneficial policy would almost result in a greater amount of bad inhumane and harmful policy in 2-4 years, when a less than ideal but pragmatic and humane as feasible policy doesn't, you risk making perfect the enemy of the good and causing more pain and harm instead of trying to improve what you reasonably can
Are you arguing that accepting Syrian refugees in Europe was a net negative?
No, I'm saying in the real world there are tradeoffs and even doing good / right things have a price and consequences.
If Biden throws the borders open, and the backlash gets Trump back in office rounding them all up and locking them in 'we aren't even pretending to try' ICE internment camps when a more measured approach could do more good, that measured approach isn't horrific or horrible or evil.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
There are a huge number of policies that would be an absolute boon, but even attempting to enact them, even if possible, would almost certainly result in a far worse and more harmful backlash.
Accepting Syrian refugees has been used throughout Europe a single issue that has gotten several far-right / facist governments elected. Also here in the US with Trump and immigration.
So if the good humane and even beneficial policy would almost result in a greater amount of bad inhumane and harmful policy in 2-4 years, when a less than ideal but pragmatic and humane as feasible policy doesn't, you risk making perfect the enemy of the good and causing more pain and harm instead of trying to improve what you reasonably can
Are you arguing that accepting Syrian refugees in Europe was a net negative?
Good for the world and humanity, bad for the popularity of politicians who permitted it.
Yup, and good for the fascists who took power from them.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
There are a huge number of policies that would be an absolute boon, but even attempting to enact them, even if possible, would almost certainly result in a far worse and more harmful backlash.
Accepting Syrian refugees has been used throughout Europe a single issue that has gotten several far-right / facist governments elected. Also here in the US with Trump and immigration.
So if the good humane and even beneficial policy would almost result in a greater amount of bad inhumane and harmful policy in 2-4 years, when a less than ideal but pragmatic and humane as feasible policy doesn't, you risk making perfect the enemy of the good and causing more pain and harm instead of trying to improve what you reasonably can
Are you arguing that accepting Syrian refugees in Europe was a net negative?
No, I'm saying in the real world there are tradeoffs and even doing good / right things have a price and consequences.
If Biden throws the borders open, and the backlash gets Trump back in office rounding them all up and locking them in 'we aren't even pretending to try' ICE internment camps when a more measured approach could do more good, that measured approach isn't horrific or horrible or evil.
You just said in your example that it wasn't a net loss when Europe welcomed in a large number of outsiders. Your own example undermines your argument.
There is a need to push a cultural narrative that questions the value of strict borders, which unfortunately will be especially hard after the whole international plague thing even though we got it from friggin' Europe. More stories like that river crossing where folks from the US and Mexico meet up to party, maybe try to get states to introduce soft border towns where people can mingle like they're at an international airport or something.
The US is the least restrictive when it comes to being able to immigrate to this country. Most everyone else is much more strict on the criteria for getting in. The only real route around most of that is to qualify for being a refugee, which is one reason why there is a huge discussion about climate change refugees because nothing really covers them. If climate change forces one out of their nation, they are pretty much fucked because no one has to recognized them as a refugee. So the only real option is to try to go for a nation that has the least criteria you have to meet for normal immigration.
In fact, I don't think anyone has a true open border policy and to be fair to every nation on Earth, there are a ton of non-xenophobic reasons to refuse implementing the concept of pure open borders.
Posts
But you seem to be criticizing Biden for not doing the former. What is it exactly you want him to do?
Again, our immigrant detention system is explicitly carceral in nature, and American Carceral systems have deterrence (in this case, to deter immigrants from coming over without submitting to a years, if not decade plus, long process that has no guarantee they will be able to move here and become citizens) as a very specific feature. You cannot separate the two.
I am literally not making an argument and it is really weird that you think it's an argument.
I stated a fact and I asked a question.
"Trying their best" is very much not a claim in evidence.
Like I've said on multiple occasions. Take information on people detained, give them court dates, and let them go. This is turning into the same shit we see in the Foreign Policy thread where anything other than bipartisan empire has to be isolationism.
Yes. The goal of the current policy is to stop people from entering the country. Giving them a reason to not attempt to do so is part of that. There are better ways and worse ways to do this. Going full Dracula would be pretty bad. Splitting up families is pretty fucking bad.
You can disagree with the goal, and I wouldn't even entirely disagree.
You can also disagree with the methods to meet that goal, but then I wonder what your alternative methods to meeting that goal would be.
But not everyone is going to be cleared by those courts to stay (in fact, most would not). So there will still be deportations, just at a later date. Would you be OK with that?
Yes. More or less. I don't believe in borders but a system in which immigrants are left to their own will and a court sorts out their right to stay in due course is wildly more humane than what Biden has chosen to do.
Do you feel this would deter attempts to enter the country?
I'm not a Republican. I don't care about attempting to deter people from entering the country.
That's a bizarre thing to say. What I'm talking about is denying asylum seekers the right to make their petition at a border crossing, and allowing ICE/BP to detain and send back anyone without ever being allowed a lawyer. I'm not opposed to open borders, but that's an extremely right wing definition of open borders.
It still wouldn't look pretty. It'd be ICE bundling people into vans after the judge dismissed their case, and taking them to border camps to be deported. Even worse, in the 2 years it takes to process their case, they've probably built a life in the USA. Got a job. Got married. Had a kid. And then suddenly... thrown back to the bad situation they came from.
There's no way to do this nicely.
And also... you want open borders but consider "open borders" a Republican caricature of the situation? Confusing....
It wouldn't be cages running at 1700% capacity breeding plague and sex crimes. Jesus. Going to tell a BLM activist that sometimes people will still need to get arrested next?
I'm not trying to imply anything I'm not saying explicitly. My understanding is that the administration is currently trying to increase legal access, but that there are resource issues in doing so due to the sheer volume of it. I personally am rather upset that access to legal resources seems to be especially low, and I personally don't understand why that access isn't being expanded nor do I understand what possible resource constraints would apply to it. Biden is actively discouraging immigrants of all sorts, specifically including refugees, at least partly because the system cannot take it, and most assuredly also for political reasons.
Open border scaremongering when they haven't been mentioned is a pretty standard feature of right wing discourse, much of vile. Unless the person you're talking is about it specifically, invoking open borders out of nowhere is just not something I'm down with. If I don't mention open borders, I don't really appreciate someone dropping their open borders quotes on me.
I don't think they should do that either. They didn't used to. They just made people wait for court dates, like you say. But I'm pretty sure you didn't like that system either, because I remember you criticising this system under Obama.
I feel like you're not really following the argument here.
The problem is what you call open borders scaremongering is effective.
The most right wing / hawkish / whatever poster in this thread is still probably in the leftmost 25% of the Democratic Party voters when it comes to immigration, ICE reform or abolishment, etc.
And a lot of the suggestions (turn loose for x years in pandemic until trial / deportation) are absolutely going to be presented as 'open borders' by the media and seen as such by a lot of the population in a way that will make actual reform harder.
How does this is any way excuse people here doing it?
Open borders don't really have an automatic stigma in this discussion, but I will try to keep in mind that you are uncomfortable with the concept going forward.
My overall point is that Biden's current goal is to reduce the number of people attempting to enter the country, yes, and I am not denying that it resembles the previous administration. I disagree that the situation is "virtually identical" because the methodology is different, and the long-term goals are at least partly different.
What we're seeing right now is what a bipartisan agreement looks like. Both parties are pursuing the same world view while one side revels in it and the other acts like its such a shame they have to do it.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
Do you feel that all of Biden's in-progress reforms would also be happening regardless of the current administration?
I think we would vacillate back and forth between a joyously cruel policy or a cruel policy run by people who pretend they have no choice. I'm not going to confuse marginally less terrible for an actual shift in world view.
I'm not sure that the US qualifies as one of the most welcoming. The degree to which we're welcoming tends to depend on our labor needs more than anything else.
Fair enough. I agree that, with American culture as it is, that's a very likely outcome.
There are a huge number of policies that would be an absolute boon, but even attempting to enact them, even if possible, would almost certainly result in a far worse and more harmful backlash.
Accepting Syrian refugees has been used throughout Europe a single issue that has gotten several far-right / facist governments elected. Also here in the US with Trump and immigration.
So if the good humane and even beneficial policy would almost result in a greater amount of bad inhumane and harmful policy in 2-4 years, when a less than ideal but pragmatic and humane as feasible policy doesn't, you risk making perfect the enemy of the good and causing more pain and harm instead of trying to improve what you reasonably can
Sure it does. Just look at the others! Most countries out there are wildly xenophobic.
Are you arguing that accepting Syrian refugees in Europe was a net negative?
Huh, it seems we're #6. God that's depressing.
https://www.immigration.ca/canada-rated-best-country-in-world-for-welcoming-immigrants
I'm not sure an opinion poll like that is actually a good way to measure this. American respondent rates are almost certainly inflated by a national narrative that is not reflect in programs and behaviors.
Good for the world and humanity, bad for the popularity of politicians who permitted it.
If you've got a better study I'd love to get closer to correct. I'm not sure what organization qualifies as a low-bias expert on the topic.
No, I'm saying in the real world there are tradeoffs and even doing good / right things have a price and consequences.
If Biden throws the borders open, and the backlash gets Trump back in office rounding them all up and locking them in 'we aren't even pretending to try' ICE internment camps when a more measured approach could do more good, that measured approach isn't horrific or horrible or evil.
Yup, and good for the fascists who took power from them.
You just said in your example that it wasn't a net loss when Europe welcomed in a large number of outsiders. Your own example undermines your argument.
In fact, I don't think anyone has a true open border policy and to be fair to every nation on Earth, there are a ton of non-xenophobic reasons to refuse implementing the concept of pure open borders.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.